They shouldn't be thread-safe to be used in cache. The cache should implement read-write locks, so only one thread can access them. Database will serialize changes anyway.
Ilia -----Original Message----- From: Kelvin Tan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 5:48 PM To: Turbine Users List Subject: Re: [Torque] Failed testcase ----- Original Message ----- From: John McNally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Turbine Users List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 12:51 AM Subject: Re: [Torque] Failed testcase > Torque objects as currently written will not work well in a cache. The > objects are not thread-safe. there are cases where the objects are > generally used in as read-only or you are only using the simple bean > properties that map the db columns, that you may be able to get away > with caching them, but in general it cannot be done. > > john mcnally > That's interesting, coz I haven't seen this mentioned in the archives or documentation before. Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere in the documentation, or is it assumed that if something is not explicitly labelled as thread-safe, then it isn't? Looking at Scarab code, it seems like the Attribute object, at least, is cached by TurbineGlobalCacheService. Is there anything special you're doing to support that then, or is it assumed that this won't be an issue (no pun intended!) given the expected load of Scarab? Do you see Torque going down the thread-safe path then? My understanding of Torque is still pretty rudimentary, so if I intend to work on it, can you point me in the right direction? Kelvin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
